Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

As you will notice, I (like Chierchia, as I read him) think of generalization as 

modal -- intensional, if you will, not a gadri or quantifier, which create 
various problems by introducing strange entities or kinds of quantification.  
So, I don't think those applies to the elephant case or the two-legged humans.
I doubt that {so'e} will adequately cover generalization, since most creatures 
occasionally do thinks that their kind don't generally do.
And the property solution is subject to the same problems as the direct one is, 
one- and zero-legged people are not characterized by two-leggedness any more 
than they are two-legged, unless you mean that {ckaji} is automatically 
generalizing, which is surely possible (though then you do have to account for 
clearly non-generalizing uses).
I don't see what the problem is with {mi nelci ro se danlu} nor how throwing in 
a {ka} or an indirect question is meant to help.

----- Original Message ----
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, September 20, 2011 8:15:03 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural 
variable

* Tuesday, 2011-09-20 at 21:16 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >
> > The problems with counting and so on which arise when we mix kinds and
> > instances could be rectified by simply declaring that {da} and
> > {[quantifier] [selbri]} never get kinds - i.e. the corresponding
> > variables are over 'mundane' singular objects (AT minus K, in
> > Chierchia's notation).
> 
> What would you then say of these:
> 
>     ro klesi be lo gerku cu gerku
> 
>     lo xanto cu bramau ro drata ke tumla danlu
> 
>     lo remna cu se tuple re da

I would say that they are false.

For the first, I don't think that's a problem.

For the third: it could be replaced by {lo remna cu ckaji lo ka se tuple
re da}, or by a tanru - {lo remna cu re mei se tuple} - or by an
explicit generic quantifier, which {so'e} arguably is: {so'e remna cu se
tuple re da}.

The second is toughest, and a good demonstration of the power of
kind-quantification, but since it is in the end a case of generics,
I think it can be handled similarly:
{so'e xanto cu bramau so'e tumla danlu poi na xanto}

That doesn't help with a pure kind predication, though. For that, e.g.
"I like all animal species", you'd have to be explicit about the kind
predication:
{mi nelci ro ka danlu ma kau}

(assuming {ka} and qkau work so as to make that work)

In general, it seems to me that kind predications resolve as one of
* existential quantification
* generic quantification
* property predication

{lo broda} might allow you to be ambiguous between the three, but for
complicated sentences you'd have to say what you mean.

Is that so bad?

> > I suggested something like this before, and I think you complained that
> > we shouldn't be separating out kinds from mundanes... but since
> > Chierchia does it, I feel licensed to push again for an explanation of
> > what would go so wrong if we did separate them out.
> 
> I see no major problem in separating the metalinguistic construct
> "kind", as defined for example by Chierchia, for contexts in which
> they appear together with their manifestations. My only problem would
> be if you forbid saying things like (quote) "My two favourite things
> are to cycle and to go to the cinema alone", i.e. if you don't allow
> "to cycle" and "to go to the cinema alone" to count as things in any
> context.

So I think I'd want to make that
{lo ka nu mi relxilma'e sazri ku joi lo ka nu mi nonkansa ve skina cu
remei traji lo ka mi nelci}.

Martin

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.